2556. Vitruvius in this order forms the columns six diameters high, and makes their diminution one quarter of the diameter. He gives to the base and capital each one module in height. No pedestal is given by him. Over the capital he places the architrave of timber in two thicknesses connected together by dovetailed dowels. He however leaves the height unsettled, merely saying that their height should be such as may be suitable to the grandeur of the work where they are used. He directs no frieze, but places over the architrave cantilevers or mutuli, projecting one fourth part of the height of the column, including the base and capital. He fixes no measure for the cornice, neither does he give any directions respecting the intercolumniations of this order. The instructions are not so specific as those which he lays down for the other orders, and there have been various interpretations of the text, which unfortunately cannot in any of the suppositions be tested on ancient remains. The whole height, according to the measuring unit which we have adopted from Vignola, is 16 modules and 3 parts. 2557. Palladio makes the height of his Tuscan column 6 diameters, and diminishes the shaft one fourth of a diameter. The height of the base and capital are each half a diameter. He provides no pedestal, but, instead thereof, places the base of the column on a zocalo or lofty plinth, whose height is equal to the diameter of the column. He leaves the intercolumniation unsettled, merely hinting that as the architraves are of timber, they, the intercolumniations may be wide. The whole height by him assigned to the order is 9 diameters and three quarters of the column. The whole height according to our scale is 19 modules and 6 parts. 2558. Serlio makes the column of the order 5 diameters exclusive of base and capital, each of which are half a diameter in height, and his diminution is one quarter of the diameter. He gives half a diameter to the height of the architrave, and an equal height to the frieze and to the cornice. His pedestal is with a plinth and base, a die, and cymatium, the whole being a third of the height of the column. He gives no rules for the intercolumniations, though in book 4. he inserts a diagram wherein intercolumns appear, merely saying that they are equal to 3 diameters. The total height according to our measure is 19 modules and 3 parts. 2559. Scamozzi makes the shaft of his column 6 diameters, and diminishes it one fourth part of its diameter. The heights of the base and capital are each half a diameter. To the entablature he assigns for height one fourth of the height of the column, including its base and capital, less half its diameter. He places a sort of triglyph in the frieze, which arises from a misconception of the text of Vitruvius. The height of his pedestal is a fourth part of that of the column, with base and capital, less half a diameter. The whole height in our measure is 21 modules and 9 parts. capital; and C, a plan of the base. Fig. 879. In the frieze the channelled projections are called triglyphs, and the spaces between them metopa, which should in breadth be equal to their height, which is that of the frieze. The shaft is usually channelled with twenty flutes. Over the triglyphs are distributed mutules or modillions, and another peculiarity is the introduction of gutta or drops, which decorate the sofite of the cornice and the feet of the triglyphs. 2561. Daviler, speaking of the two Doric entablatures given by Vignola, admires the elegance of their composition, and scarcely knows which of them to select as the most beautiful. "The first" (or denticular), hereafter immediately subjoined, says Chambers, following that author, "which is entirely antique, is the lightest, and consequently properest for interior decoration or objects intended for near inspection; the other, composed by Vignola himself from various fragments of antiquity, being bolder, and consisting of larger parts, seems better calculated for outside works and places where the point of view is either distant or unlimited. On polygonal plans, however, the mutule cornice must be avoided, because the sofites of the angular mutules would form irregular and very disagreeable figures: neither should it be employed in concaves of small dimensions, for the same reason; nor in places where frequent breaks are requisite, it being extremely difficult, often impossible, to prevent the mutules from penetrating and mutilating each other in various unsightly manners; and wherever this cornice is used on a convex surface, the sides of the mutules must be made parallel, for it would be both disagreeable and unnatural to see them broader, and consequently heavier in front than where they spring out of the mutule band." We have elsewhere observed that there is very great difficulty in distributing the parts of the Doric entablature, on account of the intervals between the centres of the triglyphs, which necessarily confine the composer to intercolumniations divisible by two modules and a half, thus producing spaces which are often too wide or too narrow for his purposes. 2562. In fig. 880. the entablature of the mutular Doric order is given to a larger scale than that of the preceding figure; and we subjoin, as in the Tuscan order, — TABLE OF PARTS OF THE ENTABLATURE OF THE MUTULAR DORIC. 2563. To obviate the difficulties mentioned in 2561. relative to the triglyphs, they have often been omitted and the entablature left plain, as in the Coliseum at Rome, the colonnades of St. Peter's of the Vatican, and in many other buildings. This, says Chambers, is an easy expedient; but as it robs the order of its principal characteristic distinction, the remedy is a desperate one, and should only be employed as a last resource. 2564. The Doric order was used by the ancients in temples dedicated to Minerva, to Mars, and to Hercules. In modern buildings, Serlio (lib. iv. c. 6.) recommends it in churches dedicated to saints remarkable by their suffering for the Christian faith. Le Clerc suggests its use for military buildings. "It may," says Chambers, " be employed in the houses of generals, or other martial men, in mausoleums erected to their memory, or in triumphal bridges and arches built to celebrate their victories.” 2665. As the difference between the mutular and denticular Doric lies entirely in the entablature, we give in the following table the whole of the details of the order, Fig. 881. observing, that from the capitals downwards, the same for each. measures assigned to them are the Fig. 881. represents the entablature of the denticular Doric and its parts, |